Surprisingly, among the NYT crew, I've really been digging A.O. Scott's writing lately. I wish he'd write about music in the same earnest, bookish way. Seriously! He's great. Elvis hasn't been doing much for me these days. End of year best-of lists comparison!
A.O. Scott
1. Talk to Her2. The Fast Runner (Atanarjuat)3. Adaptation4. Far From Heaven5. The Pianist6. Spirited Away7. Storytelling8. Gangs of New York 9. Lovely and Amazing10. Punch Drunk Love
Elvis Mitchell
1. Bloody Sunday2. Catch Me If You Can3. Morvern Callar4. Paid in Full5. Personal Velocity6. Spirited Away7. Talk to Her8. 24 Hour Party People9. What Time is it There?10. Y Tu Mama Mambien
― geeta (geeta), Monday, 30 December 2002 07:25 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Mary (Mary), Monday, 30 December 2002 07:36 (twenty-one years ago) link
I haven't read him in a while. But I was always of the opinion that he was a good writer and a terrible critic -- very impetuous and hotheaded, and his theories on race were either honest and incisive or paranoid and overreaching, depending on how willing I was to go along with him. The other regular New York Press film critic, Matt Zoller Seitz, is often very good (haven't read him in a while either -- I've kinda given up on the Press because the conservatism over there is getting really out of control).
― Jody Beth Rosen (Jody Beth Rosen), Monday, 30 December 2002 07:40 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Jody Beth Rosen (Jody Beth Rosen), Monday, 30 December 2002 07:41 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Amateurist (amateurist), Monday, 30 December 2002 07:47 (twenty-one years ago) link
For comedic value, I like these guys. Ever wonder what the 'moral rating' of the film you were watching was?
― geeta (geeta), Monday, 30 December 2002 07:47 (twenty-one years ago) link
― kieran, Monday, 30 December 2002 07:58 (twenty-one years ago) link
The others are far, far too pretentious... (I'm looking at you Michael Atkinson of the Village Voice, IM LOOKING AT YOU)
― David Allen, Monday, 30 December 2002 07:59 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Jody Beth Rosen (Jody Beth Rosen), Monday, 30 December 2002 08:00 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Amateurist (amateurist), Monday, 30 December 2002 08:10 (twenty-one years ago) link
Ebert can be useful to me occasionally as a buying guide but I generally don't read him for his prose. And Roeper...good god, man, how did that guy get his job?
― geeta (geeta), Monday, 30 December 2002 08:15 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Jody Beth Rosen (Jody Beth Rosen), Monday, 30 December 2002 08:17 (twenty-one years ago) link
1. SPIRITED AWAY2. ABOUT SCHMIDT3. TALK TO HER4. PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE5. TME OUT6. IN PRAISE OF LOVE7. I'M GOING HOME8. MAHAGONNY9. WINDTALKERS10. WARM WATER UNDER A RED BRIDGE
― Mary (Mary), Monday, 30 December 2002 09:19 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 3 February 2004 02:47 (twenty years ago) link
― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 3 February 2004 02:53 (twenty years ago) link
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 3 February 2004 02:55 (twenty years ago) link
― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 3 February 2004 03:05 (twenty years ago) link
― NA (Nick A.), Tuesday, 3 February 2004 04:13 (twenty years ago) link
I'm realizing, though, that in some cases, I tend to trust publications more than I trust individual critics. When I'm looking for reviews on MRQE or Rotten Tomatoes, I'll click on any critic at the New York Times, Village Voice, New Yorker, Salon, or the Chicago Reader (which is mostly Rosenbaum but sometimes J.R. Jones). Beyond that, I also read Ebert and David Edelstein (Slate), both of whom are the only critics their publications employ.
In most cases, Ebert is the first critic I'll check. Last night, looking for reviews of The Company, I read (in order) Ebert, Charles Taylor, and Elvis Mitchell.
― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 3 February 2004 04:33 (twenty years ago) link
I like many internet pseudo-critics. And reading Armond White is usually a good time, though more so after seeing the movie. Actually, to my taste in criticism-reading, the best critics are the ones to be read after seeing the movie rather than before. Maybe this is why I don't like reading Ebert so much.
― Eric H. (Eric H.), Tuesday, 3 February 2004 05:02 (twenty years ago) link
Agreed. I never read full-length reviews before I see a movie -- only capsules. This, of course, is what makes Rosenbaum such a compelling critic -- if a part of the movie that would ordinarily be considered a "spoiler" is worth discussing, he'll discuss it without apology.
― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 3 February 2004 05:06 (twenty years ago) link
― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 3 February 2004 05:10 (twenty years ago) link
I don't pay much attention to actual reviews until after I see a film. I'm more interested in seeing how my thoughts compared to Zacharek, the NY Times and VVoice people, the Washington Post, Chris Vognar of the Dallas Morning News (my professor one semester) and a few others (though not all of them for every film I see).
I like reviewers who are willing to judge movies on their own merits rather than against some perceived 'greatness' standard. Zacharek, especially, is good at this, and Ebert.
Rosenbaum, I feel mixed. The moralistic tone he takes on some films (Mystic River comes to mind) bothers me. It's too simplistic and black and white for me.
― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Tuesday, 3 February 2004 05:46 (twenty years ago) link
― s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 3 February 2004 16:55 (twenty years ago) link
― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 3 February 2004 17:07 (twenty years ago) link
― Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 3 February 2004 17:07 (twenty years ago) link
― J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 03:01 (twenty years ago) link
usually, the more I read of a critic's work, the less interesting I find them, eventually. even a lot of Pauline Kael's stuff doesn't hold up as well as I'd like it to - good as the writing is, a lot of her reactions to movies seem flaky and ill-thought-out.
― J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 03:12 (twenty years ago) link
(I think for the time being it should only be applied to food, at least until everyone straightens their heads out)
― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 07:47 (twenty years ago) link
― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 07:58 (twenty years ago) link
― suzy (suzy), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 08:40 (twenty years ago) link
― amateur!st (amateurist), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 09:26 (twenty years ago) link
― Enriq (Enrique), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 13:17 (twenty years ago) link
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 16:02 (twenty years ago) link
― Gear! (Gear!), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 18:19 (twenty years ago) link
― gygax! (gygax!), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 18:25 (twenty years ago) link
Peter Travers must be destroyed, along with the rest of the RS staff.
― Gear! (Gear!), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 18:34 (twenty years ago) link
Scott Tobias has always been and always will be among my favorite on the internet. Up there with Steve Erickson.
― Eric H. (Eric H.), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 21:13 (twenty years ago) link
― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Thursday, 5 February 2004 07:10 (twenty years ago) link
I'd just like to recognise the great opening shot from N., which was exactly my reaction to the title.
― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Thursday, 5 February 2004 10:07 (twenty years ago) link
― sym (shmuel), Thursday, 5 February 2004 10:51 (twenty years ago) link
― chris (chris), Thursday, 5 February 2004 11:13 (twenty years ago) link
― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Thursday, 5 February 2004 18:27 (twenty years ago) link
Yeah and indeed .Even if this were possible it would be a bad idea, but it isn't, so it is. SZ might well be the worst critic to have an international profile. I'm no Kael fan but SZ isn't fit to polish PK's glasses.― Enrique (Enrique), Friday, 6 February 2004 09:30 (twenty years ago) link
Even if this were possible it would be a bad idea, but it isn't, so it is. SZ might well be the worst critic to have an international profile. I'm no Kael fan but SZ isn't fit to polish PK's glasses.
― Enrique (Enrique), Friday, 6 February 2004 09:30 (twenty years ago) link
― amateur!st (amateurist), Friday, 6 February 2004 11:13 (twenty years ago) link
― chris (chris), Friday, 6 February 2004 12:34 (twenty years ago) link
― Enrique (Enrique), Friday, 6 February 2004 12:34 (twenty years ago) link
― chris (chris), Friday, 6 February 2004 12:36 (twenty years ago) link
― Enrique (Enrique), Friday, 6 February 2004 12:38 (twenty years ago) link
― chris (chris), Friday, 6 February 2004 12:40 (twenty years ago) link
I had two pieces in there early on. They seemed to become all about festivals and films no one had yet seen at some point, and I lost interest in them and they lost interest in me at exactly the same moment.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 24 January 2024 23:23 (seven months ago) link
That’s unfortunate. In general the EIC seems a little insufferable but he did create a magazine as good as if. Or better than Film Comment imo
― badpee pooper (Eric H.), Thursday, 25 January 2024 01:02 (seven months ago) link